Downtown Montauk’s ocean beach and bay beaches in the Town of East Hampton “took a beating” in the northeaster that hit the South Fork on Friday and Saturday, Supervisor Peter Van Scoyoc said at the town board’s work session on Tuesday, though the town was spared the greater damage and higher winds experienced to the north. 

The storm exposed much of the 3,100-foot revetment formed by sand-filled geotextile tubes at the ocean beach in downtown Montauk, constructed as a short-term measure to protect shoreline businesses from flooding while the town awaits the Army Corps of Engineers’ long-term coastal plan, the Fire Island to Montauk Point reformulation study, or FIMP. 

“We did lose a great deal of sand,” the supervisor said. “Where it’s most noticeable, I would say, is along the downtown stretch in Montauk. Most of the bags there are exposed.” But, he said, “I think it’s safe to say we’d be looking at hotel foundations and exposed cesspools and swimming pools tilting over the edge” had the revetment not been constructed. “That was an emergency interim project while we wait for FIMP to come with a sand-only major replenishment.”

The town and Suffolk County are responsible for replenishing sand to cover the revetment and must do so by May 15, Mr. Van Scoyoc said on Tuesday. Yesterday, he said that the cost of the replenishment was yet to be determined, pending a post-storm assessment. Pre-storm measurements had pointed to a cost in the range of $300,000, he said, “but clearly things have changed.” 

“That is an added expense to the town,” the supervisor said on Tuesday. The town board had budgeted $1.5 million for such projects, “but it also has sparked some conversation about erosion control districts within the town,” he said, “where we would have some of those costs, if not all, offset by specific districts. Those who benefit most from those projects and that sand would be asked to contribute a commensurate amount. That’s something that’s going to be ongoing in terms of discussion that I think we should be focusing on while we wait for the Fire Island-to-Montauk reformulation to be completed and receive that federal project.”

The sand replenishment will happen as close to the summer season as is practicable, Mr. Van Scoyoc said. “We want to be outside of the storm season, and we don’t want to put sand up there that’s going to be immediately at risk” of being washed away, he said. Wave action will tend to push sand back on to the beach, promoting a natural recovery, he added. 

Bay beaches at Barnes Landing and along Cranberry Hole Road in Amagansett also suffered erosion, Mr. Van Scoyoc said at the work session, and Gerard Drive, in Springs, was breached. 

Falling trees killed eight people throughout the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions during the storm, and 2.7 million people lost electricity. Another northeaster was projected to arrive yesterday, and yet another storm is forecast for Monday. 

“We’ll be moving forward to make sure that everything’s in place, that that beach gets restored to its normal conditions prior to the beginning of the season,” Mr. Van Scoyoc said of downtown Montauk’s ocean beach. But, he added, “It’s going to be an ongoing issue that we as a coastal community will have to deal with.”

Scores of people spoke out against offshore drilling on Long Island at a hearing hosted by Representative Lee Zeldin at Brookhaven Town Hall on Friday. 

Prompted by a Trump admimistration proposal to promote oil and gas drilling on 90 percent of the outer continental shelf off the United States, the hearing gave state and local officials, environmentalists, and residents a chance to share their concerns with Department of Interior representatives.

Long Island residents and their representatives had protested that a previous hearing held in Albany was too far away from the people who would be most affected by the plan. Mr. Zeldin, a Republican who opposes the plan along with most other Long Island lawmakers, requested the second hearing. 

It was announced just two days earlier, but was well attended despite the heavy wind and rain that accompanied Friday’s northeaster. 

Having worked with Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke while the secretary was in Congress, Mr. Zeldin said he thought Mr. Zinke would be willing to reconsider New York’s inclusion in the plan after hearing from Long Islanders. “There is no evidence of these resources even being located off of Long Island,” Mr. Zeldin said. “That alone is reason enough to take Long Island off the table.” 

Within five days of Mr. Zinke’s initial announcement, the State of Florida was dropped from the plan. The state’s governor, Rick Scott, cited Florida’s multibillion-dollar tourism industry and other economic impacts such as the threat to hundreds of thousands of jobs. Lawmakers up and down the coast have asked for their states to be removed from the plan for similar reasons.

Those who spoke at Friday’s meeting applied the same tactics. Many, including Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr., emphasized the statewide bipartisan opposition to offshore oil and gas exploration. Many pointed to economic data indicating the billions of dollars generated by Long Island’s coasts. “Our environment is our economy,” Mr. Thiele said. 

Those speaking from conservation and environmental groups raised the specter of previous disasters: exploding platforms, birds soaked with petroleum, and contaminated seafood. Several, such as Colleen Henn of the Surfrider Foundation, described the air guns used for seismic testing as disruptive to marine mammals and their ability to communicate, migrate, and find prey.

Speaking for the Citizens Campaign for the Environment, Adrienne Esposito said the residents of Long Island do not live here for the traffic, but for the water. “We consider the water our backyard, our front yard, but we would never consider it our junkyard.” She thanked Kate MacGregor, the deputy assistant secretary for land and minerals at the Department of Interior, the first of two representatives who showed up for the hearing, but asked, “Who are you to threaten it?”

Officials such as County Legislator Bridget Fleming joined their state and county colleagues in urging the department to eliminate the waters off Long Island from the proposed program and to endorse renewable energy efforts instead for the state and region.

According to material shared by Ms. Fleming in a letter addressed to Mr. Zinke, Long Island generates tourism income in excess of $5.6 billion, supporting more than 100,000 employees. “According to a 2016 study by Tourism Economics, over $700 million in state and local taxes is generated annually by Long Island tourism and the average Long Island household would have an annual tax bill increase of $745 without that revenue.”

Assemblywoman Christine Pellegrino, who represents an UpIsland district, questioned the lack of notice for the meeting. “We’re left wondering if the federal government actually wants to hear what we have to say,” Ms. Pellegrino said. 

Refusing to yield after her time had expired and the moderator began striking his gavel, Ms. Pellegrino said, “Long Island will not stand idly by while others ruin our coastline.”

After two hours of public comment, Ms. MacGregor addressed the crowd before turning the hearing over to John Tanner, another department representative. Ms. MacGregor thanked them for their boldness in their comments. Responding to the calls for coastal wind energy development made during the hearing, she said that was a shared goal of the department and something it was working on while taking into consideration the concerns that accompany that kind of development. 

The public comment period on the offshore oil and gas exploration plan will close Friday. Comments can be submitted to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management at boem.gov/National-Program-Comment. Ms. MacGregor said the review process is long and will “involve a multitude of comment periods with potentially more meetings when we come to the next step in the program process.”

This article was modified from the print version to correct an editorial modification of the original text. The Trump administration proposal would open the entire United States coastline to oil and gas exploration (not merely the East Coast), with the exception of  Florida, which was removed from the proposal five days after it was issued.

People showed up in force at the Old Noyac Schoolhouse on Friday to hear the results of groundwater tests that were conducted at the Sand Land mine on the Noyac-Bridgehampton border.

Among those speaking at the meeting, which was hosted by the Noyac Civic Council, were Robert DeLuca, president of the Group for the East End, Adrienne Esposito of the Citizens Campaign for the Environment, and Stuart Z. Cohen, Ph.D., from Environmental and Turf Services of Wheaton, Md.

Dr. Cohen, an organic chemist and certified groundwater professional, analyzed the raw data collected from the test wells placed by the Suffolk County Health Department.

According to Dr. Cohen, the preliminary findings indicate the presence of abnormally high concentrations of nitrate, manganese, and cobalt in the aquifer below the mine, and lead, arsenic, and manganese in the surface water. He attributed the contamination not only to the above-ground dumping of waste into the mine, but also to the mobilization of naturally present subsurface heavy metals that are released as a consequence of contaminated flow-through.

The Sand Land Corporation, also known as Wainscott Sand and Gravel, which operates the mine, has been using it for composting and mulching operations since running out of sand to mine decades ago. That use has been the focus of several legal actions in recent years, as has an application to expand mining operations there to cover an additional 4.9 acres and an additional 40 feet of depth.

The Sand Lane mine, which covers some 50 acres, is in one of the county's six special groundwater protection areas.

“Everybody understands the value of this particular geographic space to our drinking water,” Mr. DeLuca told the crowd on Friday. “For 30 years, every level of government has worked to make this part of our town a special groundwater protection area under state law, a critical environmental area under county law, and an aquifer protection overlay district under town law.”

He said the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation was made aware of the improper use of the site for composting and mulching and of the environmental risks involved in large-scale mulching projects.

“They were told that underneath these types of operations we have the mobilization of heavy metals, radioactive activity, in some cases pesticides. We are liberating toxins we don't want to have in our drinking water,” Mr. DeLuca said.

When Sand Land wanted to expand and get new permits for industrial waste processing, the D.E.C. was asked to look at the impact of the Sand Land operation on the water underneath the mine.

“We were ignored,” Mr. DeLuca said. “Over and over again. Those arguments were made in writing and made in person. They did nothing. The frustrating thing is that the contamination has been there while we've spent years trying to get at the data.”

He and his fellow panelists called for the state to step in to characterize the extent of the contamination, get rid of the material causing the pollution, and prevent the Sand Land operation from continuing.

“The agency that is responsible and that needs to be held accountable is the State of New York, which knew for close to a decade that this was a risk and did nothing about it,” said Mr. DeLuca. “The state cannot continue to say that a mining operation that has a pile of compost as high as this room is somehow in the process of reclaiming the facility, and that therefore this is not a problem. It is a problem. At the end of the day it is a reservoir, not a landfill, and we have to start treating it that way.”

A staffer from Representative Lee Zeldin's office was in attendance on Friday. Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr. was not at the meeting, but in a press release that day, he said, "For more than five years I have expressed my concerns to government regulators at all levels about the environmental threat presented by the various industrial operations being undertaken by Sand Land at its Noyac location."

He faulted the D.E.C. for turning "a blind eye to these community concerns," and said, "Years of regulatory neglect have yielded a stew of contamination that would more likely be associated with an open dump than a legitimate business."

A second meeting on the water data was to be held on Tuesday at 7:30 p.m., also at the Old Noyac Schoolhouse at 3010 Noyac Road, although an impending storm may force a rescheduling. Other public meetings across the South Fork on Tuesday have already been rescheduled.

On the heels of having received Deepwater Wind’s environmental and permitting assessments of its proposed 15-turbine offshore wind farm and transmission cable, the East Hampton Town Trustees agreed on Monday to ask the town board for an environmental review of the project, while two of the nine-member panel expressed adamant opposition to the project.

Rick Drew, a deputy clerk of the trustees and member of its harbor management committee, which has hosted numerous meetings with Deepwater Wind and commercial fishermen, who  have expressed almost unanimous opposition to the project, said, “Everyone’s just starting to review the document. I think we’ll have a lot more to talk about at the next meeting.” 

John Aldred, who was elected a trustee in November, suggested that his colleagues ask the town board for the environmental review. “They have professional departments that do this kind of thing,” he said, referring to the  Natural Resources and Planning Departments. Those departments “are better equipped to assess” the proposed wind farm’s parameters,” he said. “A local environmental review would be a very helpful perspective on the project and ensure that a more thorough look is given.”  

The Rhode Island wind farm developer has identified Beach Lane in Wainscott as the preferred landing site for the transmission cable, which would require an easement from the trustees, who have jurisdiction over most of the town’s beaches, waterways, and bottomlands, excluding those in Montauk. 

“It is possible that, if some form of an easement or lease is granted, there may not be the same level of review done by a non-local agency. There is a risk to not having a local review done,” Mr. Drew said. “We’d be remiss in not putting this through the same standard of review that any other applicant would abide by,” Jim Grimes, another trustee, said. 

Mr. Aldred referred to a process under the state’s Public Service Law for reviewing applications to construct and operate major electric transmission or fuel gas transmission facilities. Last month, the trustees announced that they would file for intervener status under the law, known as Article VII, and retain counsel to represent the community before the Public Service Commission.

Mr. Grimes moved for the trustees to send a letter to the town board asking that it direct the Natural Resources Department to conduct a review of the South Fork Wind Farm. “Add planning to that,” Mr. Aldred said. 

The body unanimously approved the motion, but not before Dell Cullum, another first-term trustee, spoke at length against the wind farm. “As much as I would hope that an environmental study would be done in anything that is going to, by chance, harm our environment, I would be much happier if the trustees would just deny these people the easement . . . and let’s get on with business. I don’t like the idea of industrializing our oceans,” he said.

Deepwater Wind officials have implied that the company would seek a transmission cable landing on state-owned land on Napeague should the trustees deny an easement on the ocean beach in Wainscott.

 “Regardless of how we feel individually,” Mr. Aldred said, “I think we all recognize that it probably will come ashore somewhere. . . . If we can push a local environmental review, even if it comes ashore in Napeague . . . it’s the same beach, it’s the same ocean.” 

Mr. Cullum was not convinced. “I’m not giving in that it is going to come ashore. I’d like to see it stopped. Period,” he said. Calling for a vote, he and Susan Vorpahl, also a first-term trustee, raised their hands in opposition to the wind farm. 

In other action at the meeting, the trustees reauthorized the oyster garden program in which individuals and families grow oysters in designated areas of town waters. Launched in 2016 in Three Mile Harbor and expanded last year to Hog Creek, the trustees voted to add Accabonac Harbor to the popular program. The latter site is contingent on public notice in the trustees’ newspaper of record, The Star, which is expected in next week’s issue. 

The 60-by-70-foot Three Mile Harbor site will accommodate up to 40 gardeners, while the Hog Creek and Accabonac sites will be 30 by 70 feet and available for up to 20 gardeners. The town’s shellfish hatchery will administer the sites. 

Modeled on what is known as SPAT, a Cornell Cooperative Extension initiative in waters off Southold, the program allows individuals to harvest half the 1,000 oysters seeded. The cost, approximately $250 per participant, includes gear and instruction in addition to the oysters. 

Demand may exceed capacity at the three sites, Mr. Drew said on Tuesday, and those interested in participating have been advised to contact the hatchery or the trustees’ office.

Water samples obtained from 10 test wells drilled by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services around the Sand Land mine, on the border between Bridgehampton and Noyac, indicate the presence of abnormally high concentrations of nitrate, manganese, and cobalt in the aquifer below the mine, and lead, arsenic, and manganese in the surface water. 

A private testing firm analyzed the test results and discussed them at a meeting on Friday in Noyac.

Each of the contaminants poses potential health risks. For example, charts displayed at the meeting showed that levels of manganese, an essential nutrient under normal circumstances, spiked above 5,000 parts per billion in the aquifer and 730 p.p.b. in the surface water, when the “maximum allowable level” in drinking water as defined by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation is 300 p.p.b. 

“Elevated manganese exposure over a long time could harm the nervous system,” the D.E.C. states on its website. “Infants and children up to 1 year old should not be given water containing manganese over” that amount.

The test results were presented to a roomful of concerned citizens and members of the press who gathered at the Old Noyac Schoolhouse on Friday for a public meeting hosted by the Noyac Civic Council. Among those speaking were Robert DeLuca, president of the Group for the East End, Adrienne Esposito of the Citizens Campaign for the Environment, and Stuart Z. Cohen of Environmental and Turf Services of Wheaton, Md.

The Sand Land mine is estimated to span between 30 and 50 acres off Millstone Road and to run as deep as 60 to 70 feet below the original grade. It is owned by the Sand Land Corporation, also known as Wainscott Sand and Gravel, which has been using the site for composting and mulching since running out of sand to mine decades ago. That secondary, unpermitted use has been the focus of litigation for several years.

In 2013, Sand Land was granted a permit to continue operating under New York State’s Mined Lands Reclamation Act. That permit, which is set to expire this year, does not allow for solid-waste management operations. 

“We argued that there should be no permit extension until they figure out the potential environmental risk of mulching operations, which is the type of business Sand Land is actually conducting,” Mr. DeLuca said. “The D.E.C. granted the permit anyway.”

In 2015, lawyers for Sand Land began to seek permission to expand the mining operation by 4.9 acres and to excavate 40 feet deeper than authorized under the 2013 Mined Lands permit. That expansion was not granted, but is currently the subject of legal challenges.

In 2016, the State Supreme Court Appellate Division upheld a 2012 decision by the Southampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals ruling that Sand Land was not permitted to conduct waste processing at the site. The 2016 decision as challenged by attorneys for Sand Land, and was overturned by a State Supreme Court justice.

Sand Land Corporation is represented by Brian Matthews of Matthews, Kirst & Cooley of East Hampton. Mr. Matthews did not return a call for comment.

Mr. Cohen, who holds a Ph.D. in organic chemistry and is a nationally certified “groundwater professional,” analyzed the raw data collected from the wells and attributed the contamination to above-ground dumping of waste into the mine and to the mobilization of naturally present subsurface heavy metals that are released as a consequence of contaminated flow-through.

“There are no manifests,” Mr. Cohen said. “We don’t know what’s being delivered there. Nobody is tracking this.” 

When asked how other communities around the country deal with this kind of problem, Mr. Cohen said, “I have never been involved in a case like this. It’s unusual for the local government to turn a blind eye.” He added as an aside that he had worked with the environmental activist Erin Brockovich, whose fight against the Pacific Gas and Electric Company for groundwater contamination in residential areas was the subject of a 2000 film starring Julia Roberts.

“Everybody understands the value of this particular geographic space to our drinking water,” Mr. DeLuca told the crowd on Friday. “For 30 years, every level of government has worked to make this part of our town a special groundwater protection area under state law, a critical environmental area under county law, and an aquifer protection overlay district under town law.”

He said the state D.E.C. was made aware of the improper use of the site for composting and mulching and of the environmental risks involved in large-scale mulching projects.

“They were told that underneath these types of operations we have the mobilization of heavy metals, radioactive activity, in some cases pesticides. We are liberating toxins we don’t want to have in our drinking water,” Mr. DeLuca said. 

The test results released last week are being compared to documented evidence of groundwater and surface water contamination discovered in the Horseblock Road area of Yaphank that have been traced back to vegetative waste mulching and composting operations run by Long Island Compost/Great Gardens.

“When Sand Land wanted to expand, Bob and I reported to the D.E.C.,” Ms. Esposito said. “We told them we saw mulch being dumped in the middle of Sand Land with our own eyes. They didn’t believe us.” 

Referring to the charts and diagrams surrounding her and her fellow panelists, which illustrated the abnormally high levels of toxins found in the test wells, she added, “Apparently we have good eyesight.”

“We were ignored,” Mr. DeLuca said. “Over and over again. Those arguments were made in writing and made in person. They did nothing. The frustrating thing is that the contamination has been there while we’ve spent years trying to get at the data.”

The panelists called for the state to step in to determine the extent of the contamination, get rid of the material causing the pollution, and prevent the Sand Land operation from continuing.

“What we have is a first look,” Mr. DeLuca said. “The Suffolk County Health Department went in and popped in 10 wells. The wells are telling us there is contamination. It’s a framework. Now we need a formal site characterization: Has the contamination migrated off-site? How far? What is the remediation plan?”

He added, “The agency that is responsible and that needs to be held accountable is the State of New York, which knew for close to a decade that this was a risk and did nothing about it. The state cannot continue to say that a mining operation that has a pile of compost as high as this room is somehow in the process of reclaiming the facility, and that therefore this is not a problem. It is a problem. At the end of the day it is a reservoir, not a landfill, and we have to start treating it that way.”

A staff member from the office of Representative Lee Zeldin was in attendance at last Friday’s meeting. Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr. was not at the meeting, but in a press release that day said, “For more than five years I have expressed my concerns to government regulators at all levels about the environmental threat presented by the various industrial operations being undertaken by Sand Land at its Noyac location.”

He faulted the D.E.C. for turning “a blind eye to these community concerns. Years of regulatory neglect have yielded a stew of contamination that would more likely be associated with an open dump than a legitimate business.”

“Assemblyman Thiele has been very supportive,” said Mr. DeLuca. “But if this issue is going to be fixed the governor’s office is going to have to get behind it. It’s to the D.E.C.’s and Governor Cuomo’s advantage to get ahead of this thing.”

A second meeting on the water data that was to have been held on Tuesday, also at the Old Noyac Schoolhouse, was canceled due to the snowstorm.

Improving the safety of pedestrians on Bridgehampton’s Main Street, an ongoing concern, is closer to reality this spring, according to Southampton Town’s director of public transportation and traffic safety, Tom Neely, who described a series of changes using a $700,000 state grant at a meeting of the Bridgehampton Citizens Advisory Committee on Monday. 

There has been a history of pedestrians hit by cars on Main Street. In October of 2015 Anna Pump, a partner in the Loaves and Fishes food shops and the Bridgehampton Inn, died after being hit by a pickup truck in front of the hamlet’s post office. As recently as December a woman was injured after being struck in the crosswalk in front of the Bridgehampton Inn. 

  Mr. Neely, who displayed a map pinpointing some of the corridor’s most treacherous crossings, laid out the elements of the town’s plan, saying the project should be completed by the end of June. The work will include adding and reconfiguring crosswalks, improving signs and street markings, extending existing sidewalks, and upgrading street lighting. 

Mr. Neely said the street lighting would be improved along the 1.3 miles of road from Bridgehampton Commons to Lockwood Avenue, with 19 new lights attached to existing utility poles via 12-foot arms. Eighteen existing lights will also be upgraded to meet federal standards for highway lighting, he said.

The sidewalk on the south side of Main Street is to be extended, with the goal of creating an uninterrupted passage from Ocean Road to the building that houses Citarella. “We’re looking to fill in the sidewalk gaps so that people won’t have to walk in the road,” Mr. Neely said. 

The most intensive work will be new and improved crosswalks, an effort that requires the town to work with the state’s Department of Transportation since Main Street is a state highway. “The state has final approval on everything involving the road,” Mr. Neely said, noting that as a result some of the decisions concerning the crosswalks are in flux. For instance, the state apparently is still whether to install a traffic signal on Main Street in front of the Candy Kitchen. Proposed new crosswalks at the School Street intersection and at the war monument just west of the Bridgehampton-Sag Harbor Turnpike are also being reviewed by the state. 

Highly visible pedestrian crossing signs are planned at the crosswalks in front of the post office, Thayer’s Hardware and Patio store, and the Bridgehampton Library. “They will be diamond-shaped yellow signs with yellow LED lights framing them,” Mr. Neely said, explaining that the town is working with engineers from the firm of L.K. McLean Associates of Brookhaven. Overhead motion detectors are to activate the lights whenever a pedestrian enters one of the crosswalks. Plus, a curb extension known as a bump-out would be added to prevent cars from parking in these spaces. “Bump-outs also shorten the distance that pedestrians have to walk in unprotected territory across the street,” Mr. Neely said.

The sole East Hampton resident seeking the Democratic nomination to challenge Representative Lee Zeldin in November, Perry Gershon, will be among a field of seven hopefuls at a forum in Amagansett on Friday.

The 7 p.m. gathering at St. Michael’s Lutheran Church on Montauk Highway will be at least the 12th time the candidates have made their pitches as a group. It is organized by the East Hampton Democratic Town Committee and will be moderated by Arthur Schiff and Phyllis Italiano.

Two of the candidates’ names are familiar, at least to some First Congressional District voters, Kate Browning and Vivian Viloria-Fisher are former Suffolk legislators from points west. The latest to enter the race for the nomination is Bruce Miller, a Port Jefferson Village trustee and former school board member.

David Pechefsky has held a variety of posts in New York City government, including as assistant director of housing and economic development, and he ran for City Council in 2009 as a Green Party candidate.

The others, including Mr. Gershon, have no direct political experience. Brendon Henry is a bartender from Center Moriches. Elaine DiMasi worked at Brookhaven National Laboratory for more than 20 years. 

At this point, even more candidates could enter the race. The deadline for filing petitions is April 12. The primary itself is on June 26. So far, there has been no indication that anyone will challenge Mr. Zeldin for the Republican nomination.

Mr. Gershon got to know East Hampton through his then-girlfriend, Lisa Post, whom he married at East Hampton Point in 1995. His wife’s family had had a house here since the 1970s.

The Gershons first bought on Mile Hill Road in East Hampton’s Northwest Woods in 1999, building a house that Mr. Gershon said was a refuge for him from the rest of the world. He changed his voting registration from Manhattan to East Hampton last year.

Scuba and running marathons are among Mr. Gershon’s interests, as are the New York Mets. He ran a sports bar in Manhattan in the 1980s. When the Mets were in the 2015 World Series, he attended the Saturday night loss to the Kansas City Royals then, crestfallen, ran the New York Marathon the following morning, completing the 26.2-mile course in 3 hours and 54 minutes.

Mr. Gershon graduated from Yale University, a member of the class of 1984, and received a business degree from the University of California at Berkeley. He had attended medical school for two years (his parents were doctors) before changing course and deciding to go into business. He is taking time out from his commercial lending company to run for Congress, he said.

Amid a crowded field, the candidates have had to work hard to distinguish themselves. Ms. Viloria-Fisher and Mr. Gershon attended a Feb. 17 vigil in East Hampton Village for victims of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas school shootings. Mr. Pechefsky recently opened his campaign headquarters in a building next door to Mr. Zeldin’s Patchogue office.

In an interview, Mr. Gershon said that he believed that he had the best chance among the Democratic hopefuls of beating Mr. Zeldin in the general election, citing his message and fund-raising. “Zeldin has something like $2 million now, and he is going to get a whole lot more,” he said.

Mr. Gershon’s campaign had more than $812,000 on hand as of this week, according to campaign disclosures; Mr. Zeldin had about $1.2 million in the bank. 

The Gershon campaign was well ahead of its nearest Democratic competitor, Mr. Pechefsky, who reported about $175,000 in his war chest. Mr. Pechefsky put $100,000 into his campaign last year. Mr. Gershon has so far contributed $400,000 of his own money.

Much has been made of the fact that Mr. Zeldin is the only Jewish Republican in Congress. Mr. Gershon said that the fact that he too is Jewish could neutralize that as a campaign plus for Mr. Zeldin.

One takeaway Mr. Gershon said that he hoped the audience at Friday’s forum would have would be that he has the ability to win the general election. 

“My campaign has tried to highlight Mr. Zeldin’s vulnerability,” he said, citing the Republican’s embrace of Steve Bannon, opposition to the Russia probe, and Mr. Zeldin’s sponsorship of a bill that would allow holders of concealed pistol permits from other states to carry their guns in New York.

He said that Mr. Zeldin had sought to obscure the issues of gun control following the Feb. 14 school shootings by putting a focus on mental health and not limiting assault weapons. “And he has attacked law enforcement,” Mr. Gershon said.

Mr. Gershon said he did not see any signs that Mr. Zeldin had made a tack to the center, as many politicians do as elections approach. “He has gone further right,” he said. “He has gone the other way and attached himself to Donald Trump. I don’t think this will play well. Trump’s numbers are going to continue to decline,” he said.

Turnout will be key in November, he said. To win, he said, Democrats will have to rally their base in north Brookhaven and on the South Fork, as well as capture independents and moderate Republicans across the district who have had their fill of President Trump.

He said that enthusiasm seems to favor Democrats at this point. Of the more than 10 candidate forums that he has taken part in, all of the rooms have been full and he said the crowds are building. “There is a fierce dislike of Zeldin,” Mr. Gershon said.

For Mr. Gershon, the key to winning is to get the message across on jobs, health care, and the environment. On the East End, the effects of global warming are particularly noticeable, he said. “Zeldin is far off base on this,” he said.

East Hampton Town officials working on revisions to a law governing farm and deer-excluding fences, and in particular how close they can be to property lines and roadways, heard the concerns of residents at a hearing last Thursday.

As the number of deer has increased on the East End, tall fences have proliferated, leading, as several people who spoke at the Town Hall hearing said, to a prisonlike landscape.

“This barrage of fencing is creating a suburban atmosphere and diminishing our property values,” Jim MacMillan of Amagansett told the town board.

Mr. MacMillan, a real estate broker, said the town’s environmental amenities were desirable and that too many tall fences had the opposite effect and could depress prices. Moreover, he said, the fences force wildlife onto roads.

This view was echoed by Susan McGraw Keber, a town trustee and member of the East Hampton Group for Wildlife who lives in Northwest. She called for a deer survey to help understand their numbers.

“Fencing at 10 feet, at 8 feet, at 6 feet, is to ensure that our deer are going to be hurt on our roadways. There is no place for them to escape to,” Ms. McGraw Keber said.

Also speaking at last Thursday’s hearing was Patti Wadzinski, an East Hampton resident since 1974 and a Sotheby’s real estate broker, who said she wanted to see natural species protected. A town regulation requiring corridors between fenced areas was not being enforced, she said.

“I think that this town, who professes to want open space and the natural world that we live in, would want to actually protect the open space and natural world that we live in,” she said. Ten-foot fences, she said, were absurd. “To me it looks like a gulag, a prison now. Is that how we want our town to look?” 

David Buda, a Springs resident and frequent presence at town board meetings, said that current fence regulations and the proposed revisions create a walled-in, urban look. Fences and other wall-like structures over four feet high in front yards and close to roads in agricultural areas were dangerous eyesores and should be prohibited, he said.

Deer fences up to eight feet high in side yards that are on two or fewer  property lines and are set at least 20 feet back from roadways are allowed under current law without architectural review board approval. No more than half of a property can be enclosed, and fences can only be up to six feet high on a roadside.

Under revised law, exceptions could be sought from the architectural review board for taller fences for actual farming operations, NancyLynn Thiele, a town lawyer, said. Under the current code, requests have to go to the zoning board of appeals.

Among other potential code changes is a clarification that driveway gates and posts be set back from the road by at least 20 feet.

Following the hearing, East Hampton Town Supervisor Peter Van Scoyoc said that the board was not ready to approve the proposed changes, and that it would revisit the matter soon.

Two months after Deepwater Wind offered the East Hampton Town Board a community-benefits package in exchange for the easements it will need to land a cable from its proposed South Fork Wind Farm and bury it along a route to a Long Island Power Authority substation in East Hampton, the town trustees offered a counterproposal that seeks significantly more. 

The offshore wind farm developer, which built and operates the five-turbine Block Island Wind Farm, the nation’s first, has offered to pay for burial of the overhead utility lines along its transmission cable’s proposed path in Wainscott, an area designated by the town and state as scenic. It has also 

offered $1 million to the town for water infrastructure improvements in Wainscott; $500,000 to the trustees for a marine-environment improvement fund and an additional $100,000 for a fisheries habitat fund; and another $200,000 to the town for sustainable-energy and resiliency projects as identified by the town’s energy-sustainability committee. 

The Rhode Island company has also said that offices will be maintained in Montauk for the project’s anticipated 25-year life span, providing an unspecified number of permanent jobs.  

At the meeting of the East Hampton Town Trustees on Monday, John Aldred, who was elected trustee in November, read a document that outlined the trustees’ counteroffer. It calls, first, for the establishment of a fisheries conflict-resolution fund to compensate fishermen for financial losses due to offshore and near-shore wind farm–related construction or operations, and unintended conflicts of use on traditional fishing grounds. Also on the list is a trustees-administered fishery-resource assistance fund, uses of which could include shellfish population enhancement and restoration; fisheries research, socioeconomic studies of fisheries, and possible development of an East End fisheries consortium. 

The trustees also want an aquatic 

environmental-improvement fund that could support shellfish-based environmental improvement and education; aquaculture-based environmental remediation; aquatic vegetation restoration; water-quality testing; development and implementation of an environmental management plan; the purchase or leasing, and operation, of a dredge boat; marsh replanting, and phragmites control. 

Establishment of a regional town trustee historical-research project and an infrastructure-needs assessment, implementation, and improvement fund were also on the trustees’ list. Finally, they asked that Deepwater Wind contribute an unspecified annual sum for the life of the project, to be administered by the trustees in consultation with stakeholder groups. 

The document was delivered to Deepwater Wind on Monday, the trustees said. 

Rick Drew, co-chairman of the trustees’ harbor-management committee, said that the trustees will file for Article VII intervener status with the State Public Service Commission, retain counsel to represent the community, and “maintain an active role throughout the permitting phase of the project and beyond.”

Article VII is a public review process under the state public service law for any application to construct and operate a major electric transmission facility or fuel gas transmission facility. It requires a review of the need for, and environmental impact of, the siting, design, construction, and operation of such facilities. Although it allows residents to participate in the review process, the Public Service Commission makes the final decision regarding all applications. 

Anthony Tohill, an attorney whom the trustees have retained for legal matters, said that while some elements of the trustees’ counterproposal had not yet been discussed publicly, many of them are in the town’s waterfront revitalization plan approved in 1999. “So they’re not something that has not been discussed or vetted or understood to be beneficial to the town in the past,” he said. “That’s the entire reason for this: The intention is to cause a dialog to start immediately” between Deepwater Wind and the town board, “so that these items of concern and interest expressed by the trustees will get a public airing and, hopefully, the financial support of Deepwater Wind in the months and years ahead.” 

But a representative of the near-shore commercial fishing industry complained that he had been left out of the document’s creation and, further, that it had been crafted during purported executive sessions, which are not open to the public, when in fact they were meant to be special meetings to which the public should have been invited. Susan Vorpahl, a trustee who was also elected in November, agreed with the fisheries representative, asserting that the meetings were improper. 

 Gary Cobb, who ran unsuccessfully for trustee last year, asked if the document had been crafted at the trustees’ Jan. 24 meeting. “This proposal is news to me and the stakeholders that I represent, the baymen,” Mr. Cobb told Francis Bock, the trustees’ clerk. 

 That meeting had been announced as a “special meeting —executive session” in a Jan. 18 memorandum to Carole Brennan, the town clerk, that was distributed to the press. (The Jan. 24 meeting fell on a Wednesday, as did another on Feb. 7; the trustees’ regular meetings are held on the second and fourth Monday of each month.)

No, Mr. Bock said, it was not crafted at that meeting: “We’ve been working on this for a number of weeks, trying to understand where we are in this situation.” 

The trustees’ counterproposal has “a lot of good elements,” Mr. Cobb acknowledged. “I’m just questioning, where did it come from?” From multiple meetings of the harbor-management committee, was Mr. Bock’s reply, and, Mr. Aldred added, through individual discussions. The trustees considered the entire community, Mr. Drew said. “There are many voices to this, and the fishing community has been the priority of all of our meetings, as I think you know as well as anyone. . . . I don’t think we’ve been chintzy on meetings.”

Ms. Vorpahl spoke up. “The confusion lies in the fact that the meetings that we held on Jan. 24 and Feb. 7 were put out in a memorandum as an executive session, when in fact they were not executive sessions, and the public could and should have been there.”

 No, Mr. Bock said. “I disagree. The public cannot be involved in every single meeting that we have. We cannot do business when you have 20 people all piping in.” 

Mr. Cobb asked Christopher Carillo, the trustees’ attorney, if the meetings were executive sessions. He and Mr. Drew responded at the same time. “It can be considered an executive session,” Mr. Drew said. “No, it was not,” the attorney said.

“But it was made aware of as an executive session,” Ms. Vorpahl said. “So I think the confusion there was that the public probably, maybe, thought that they were not entitled to be involved in an executive session.”

“This can lead to litigation,” Mr. Bock, exasperated, said, “and we met with our special counsel, so yes, we held it as an executive session.”  

Mr. Grimes elaborated on that concern. Even if the trustees decline to grant an easement over beaches under their jurisdiction allowing Deepwater Wind to land its transmission cable, he told Mr. Cobb, “our authority in this is rather limited, to say the least. This is where the Article VII process, and the judge’s position as the sole arbitrator in this dialog, comes into play.” Should Deepwater Wind assert that they have made every effort to negotiate a reasonable solution, the authority of the trustees, the town, and even the state can be overruled, he said. 

East Hampton has a reputation for being progressive and inclusive, but that does not mean it is immune to human-rights and civil-rights problems. And so it was that 25 years ago this coming July, the East Hampton Town Anti-Bias Task Force held its first meeting in the basement of Calvary Baptist Church in East Hampton. Soon, the group was making is presence felt all around town, moving its meeting to the Methodist Church and the East Hampton Day Care Center, too.

The committee was formed to address discrimination based on race, religion, age, disability, gender, and sexual orientation, or marital, familial, or socioeconomic status. Its aim is to promote diversity, unity, and understanding among the various ethic, economic, and religious groups that make up our community. 

Members of the task force say they are determined to tackle bias by practicing what they preach: that is, through mutual understanding, not confrontation.

Two Anti-Bias Task Force board members, Audrey Gaines of East Hampton, who is the committee chairwoman, and Edna Steck of Montauk, believe that everyone is best served through the development of meaningful relationships, rather than heated debate and crisis management. 

They embody the quiet and consistent advocacy they promote, and have spent the greater part of their lives working independently and together to tackle bias on the East End.

“We’ve known each other for about 50 years,” Ms. Gaines said.

“Not quite yet,” Ms. Steck corrected. “But definitely over 45 years.” 

As founding members of the East Hampton Anti-Bias Task Force, they helped the group build and maintain close ties with schools, police, government, houses of worship, and cultural organizations, citizens advisory groups, and not-for-profits.

Meetings are now held at Town Hall on Pantigo Road on the second Wednesday of every month, when the board convenes to discuss initiatives, events, and activities underway or under consideration. Members are appointed by the East Hampton Town Board, and meetings are attended by Sylvia Overby, deputy supervisor of East Hampton, who is the liaison between the town and the task force.

“The advantage of being based in Town Hall is that we keep acquainted with appointed and elected officials,” said Ms. Gaines. “People know us, and we know them. We have their ear if something comes up. They take note, especially when Edna speaks.”

If there is a disadvantage to meeting ­Continued from A1

in Town Hall, it relates to the perception of some residents, particularly immigrants, that showing up at a government building could involve personal risk. “This is not about East Hampton,” Ms. Gaines said. “It is a reaction to what is going on at the national level. People listen to the news.”

Ms. Steck agreed that the recent rise of anti-immigrant rhetoric across the country has changed the nature of the work they do. A new focus of the task force’s efforts has been to revert to former methods. “Because people are more wary than before about stepping forward or contacting us with concerns,” she said, “we have responded by being more proactive in getting the word out, in being visible.”

“We used to meet in random locations. Church basements, libraries. And now we’ve been getting back to that,” Ms. Gaines said. “We’ve been going into the communities directly. We take our talking points, our script. We want them to know who we are and what we do.”

While general meetings are public, the task force meets privately to review and respond to reports of specific bias-related incidents from individuals. “Complaints are handled in special sessions,” Ms. Gaines said. “We listen, consider the facts, then make referrals to organizations best suited to help.”

“That’s important for people to understand,” Ms. Steck said. “The Town Hall meetings are open to the public, and everyone is welcome, but the complaint process is confidential. We do not ask about residency status. We do not judge. Our job is to make sure that people who feel they have been discriminated against are heard and that they are provided with the right information and directed to the right resources.”

As far as the future of the East Hampton Town Anti-Bias Task Force is concerned, the two longtime board members have exactly the same hopes and dreams they had when they joined the group a quarter-century ago.

“No one should be treated poorly,” Ms. Steck said. “Everyone has the right to be treated with dignity, regardless of their status, preferences, or circumstances. We want to continue to help people in our area appreciate the importance of this right.”